• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

What is going on with Hunting locations?

PATRON

NES Life Member
NES Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
6,904
Likes
8,387
Feedback: 152 / 1 / 1
I was just reading about Norwood throwing hunters out,my brother inlaw has hunted in the same spot in Walpole for years with no problem. He went the othe day to check on his stand,and it had a big orange sign telling him to get out.On the way to his truck he ran into the woods rangers who told him he could no longer hunt in those woods.What the hell is going on?
 
Where in Walpole was his stand? This is nuts!
I know there are a bunch of stands off the high tension roads near me.
 
Yup, I'm hunting in Walpole, but on my sportsman's club property. I do know my friends have some random stands around town though. And some of them are in nice spots!
 
Something is fishy here. Some of the land off of 27 is state WMA that is perfectly legal to hunt on. My club runs a youth pheasant program that is sponsored by the state, and that is where they bring the kids to hunt the pheasants that the state purchases for us. The town is picky though!!! You better make sure you are on the WMA land or they will kick you out. All I can think of is that your buddy was not on the WMA land and that is why they gave him a hard time.
 
Medfield has some sort of no firearm (maybe bow too?) discharge statute that I too am hearing is getting more attention.

I spoke to what I was told was the chief clerk at the town hall the other day and I requested a copy of the by law, she was fairly clueless, - told me to "check w the police chief" and that there was no hunting allowed in town. I asked "what,about the town's new deer hunting program or the state WMA down the road? " she got flustered and,said you can't hunt on WMA either. I asked why do they stock it with pheasant then? (you can see where this is going.....)

something fishy going on because she wouldn't give me a copy of by law. I was nice and totally non confrontational, and she was.nice enough too but either they dont want to talk about it or she wasnt too bright. maybe both?

one would imagine that the town hall was the center of government where laws are kept on file - not something that needs to be verbally explained by the chief of police?

You were being fed a line of bullshit by someone who should know better. The Town Clerk is indeed the "legal repository" of ALL records (including by-laws) for a town, period. She probably heard "g-g-g-u-u-n-n" and went brain-dead.

At any rate, there is no need to go see anyone, all that info is online. I merely Googled the town and then searched the by-laws for "shooting" to come up with this (and "hunting" for the 2nd URL).

http://www.ecode360.com/27373563?highlight=shooting,shoot#27373563 - Chapter 120 forbids any shooting in town (including bow), was adopted in 1992 and has no exemption for hunting.


The town By-Laws do not apply to state property unless the state has regulations that grant such. The Town cannot make By-Laws that have affect over a WMA. I have there is case law on state sovereignty in regards to this. Teasdale which is case that dates back to the early 1900's. The Town Clerk is required by law to be the keeper of the records for the town and is required to provide you with a copy of such. DON'T BACK DOWN!!!

In addition to Joe's info above, you should ask the Town Treasurer if any lands in town were purchased with Pittman-Robertson funds? It is my understanding that the "hook" with these funds is that the land can NOT legally be closed from hunting . . . Joe will know more about this than I do. I'm sure there is some legal recourse to this and it might even include the town paying back the fund ALL the funds received to buy the land for violating the terms of the agreement (that would be sweet revenge)! Read this article below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
 
Interesting, the only thing I can find on-line about the Medfield WMA is reporting it as closed. ??? I'm going to look into this further.
 
Check your hunting or fishing license there will be a fee on it for Acquiring land that will be forever open to hunting fishing and trapping. Yes it is different from P-R money as it is part of your license fee and collected directly by F&W and can only be used to buy land.

Could some one look up the case involving Teasdale, This a Mass. case that defines the state's sovereignty over the cities and towns. A town or City's By-Laws or Ordinances have no authority over state or federally owned lands. The Cops in Medfield are out of line on this, You guys need to take them to the wood shed. I have dealt with in the past in other towns.


Wildlands Stamp, Resident

5.00

Google brings up this interesting letter from the AG to the Secretary of Public Safety, referencing the Teasdale case (but no hotlink):
http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/ags-opinions/opinion-no-0001-1.html

Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Construction Co., 192 Mass. 440 (1906).

Here are two pointers to the decision:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VC...nstruction Co., 192 Mass. 440 (1906).&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0K...nstruction Co., 192 Mass. 440 (1906).&f=false
 
.
Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Const. Co. said:
Inasmuch as the ground on which the bill was dismissed is not mentioned, the plaintiffs have the burden of maintaining that upon the facts which appear they have a right to a decree in their favor. Donovan v. McCarty, 155 Mass. 543. Moreover, since HN1 the evidence at the hearing was substantially all oral, the findings of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong. Dickinson v. Todd, 172 Mass. 183.

We have examined the evidence, and in view of the locality of the work, the number of horses employed, the attempts made by the respondent to secure stable room, the action of the board of health upon the petition made to them and the apparent attitude of the board upon the whole question of stable room, the propriety of doing the work with horses and the saving thus [442] made in expense when compared with other methods of doing the work, a reasonable and proper view which the trial judge could have taken of the evidence was that the method adopted and carried out to procure stable room was reasonably necessary for the prosecution of the work. At least such a view of the evidence could not be set aside as clearly wrong, and it is to be presumed in support of the decree that the trial judge took that view. In the same manner it is to be presumed that the park commissioners considered it reasonably necessary that the stable should be erected upon the park land during the work to be done under the contract, and that under a vote of the board it was erected upon a spot selected by the engineer, and that this act was sanctioned by the commissioners.

Here then is a case where the commissioners have made a contract for the proper preparation of land taken for park purposes, and it is reasonably necessary to the performance of that contract that a stable should be placed temporarily upon the unfinished park, and such a stable has been erected under a vote of the commissioners and by their sanction.

R.L. c. 102, § 69, reads thus: HN2 "No person shall erect, occupy or use for a stable any building in a city whose population exceeds twenty-five thousand unless such use is licensed by the board of health of said city, and, in such case, only to the extent so licensed." Quincy, within whose limits the stable stands, is a city of more than twenty-five thousand inhabitants, and the erection and use of the stable has not been licensed by the board of health of that city.

The question is whether the section above quoted is applicable to this stable. HN3 The statutes under which the metropolitan park commissioners act contain elaborate provision for the establishment of parks or "open spaces for exercise and recreation." St. 1893, c. 407. St. 1894, cc. 288, 483. The commissioners are authorized to acquire, by right of eminent domain or otherwise, and to "maintain and make available," such open spaces for such purposes, to take charge of the same, to make rules and regulations for the government and use of the same, and further, in general to "do all acts needful for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to and imposed upon" them. St. 1893, c. 407, § 4. In a word, these parks are placed [443] under the control of these commissioners acting as the agents of the State in exercising the authority of the sovereign over its own property. As such agents, performing the duty of making available for park purposes the land in question, it is found reasonably necessary for them to erect upon it and use this stable. Such an act must be regarded as needful in the proper execution of the powers which the State may exercise over its own property; and the general law made for the regulation of citizens must be held subordinate to this special statute regulating the use of the property of the State unless there is express provision to the contrary. It is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to give to the local licensing board the authority to thwart the reasonably necessary efforts of the park commissioners to perform their duty as agents of the State.
 
"No person shall fire or discharge or shoot any firearm, rifle or shotgun as defined in MGL c. 140, § 121, as may be amended from time to time, or any bow drawn, held or released by mechanical means in the Town of Medfield."

So they are OK with traditional archery/bowhunting, but compound shooters can suck it?
 
I don't know what they are okay with. I just know that their By-Law does not apply to state property, and that "Firing, discharging or shooting of a firearm, rifle or shotgun". Is the element of the crime, so that that must happen first.

Understood. It was really a rhetorical question.... just pointing out the wording of it which I found peculiar
 
I live in town and there is a lot of confusion on what is town land, Trustee of the Reservation land, State land and Federal flood control land down by the Stop and Charles river. I see lots of stands on Trustee land and just leave them alone. I've left a few notes on them with mixed results.
 
Norwood is by written permission on private land. Also, a cop is bowhunting near the airport and thinks he owns the place. Tried to throw a guy out and threatened arrest. Guy owned the land.
So I heard.
 
Norwood is by written permission on private land. Also, a cop is bowhunting near the airport and thinks he owns the place. Tried to throw a guy out and threatened arrest. Guy owned the land.
So I heard.
Yup, friend of mine. This cop has his "friends" that got him into bowhunting and he looks the other way on Their hunting irregularities. He also has hunted in Norwood's woods illegally. People have voiced concerns about the # of deer behind Prescott school woods and the Lyme disease and were told by the police "there will be a controlled hunt in the future" and guess who will be the hunters ???
 
Last edited:
Doing some digging. Haven't read all the literature yet - its a lot. but it looks like MA takes the Pittman-Robertson funds and spreads it around like a cheap whore.
http://archive.org/stream/massachusettsout00mass/massachusettsout00mass_djvu.txt
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/dfw/publications/annual-reports/annual-report-fy07.pdf
From 2007
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration(Pittman-Robertson)
The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

(
DFW) apportionment of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restora*
tion funds ($2,611,045) was an increase from last year’s
apportionment. These funds are available for wildlife
restoration projects and hunter education. Six projects
received reimbursement from these funds including
hunter education, wildlife population trends and harvest
surveys, waterfowl research and management, wildlife

habitat management, program coordination, and land

acquisition
.


ETA: sorry, this just a small rant after I saw one of my neighbors complain about a bow hunter in the woods nearby... I checked to see if it was "legal" to hunt there & it's posted on the website that its not.... looking to see if they got P-R funds, which it looks like they did. [angry]

ETA(again): found this link: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SWG/SWG_Funding.htm but there's no details.
Sent the folks there an e-mail...
 
Last edited:
On a related note, would Fish and Wildlife pay market prices for land or do they pay substantially less than a property is worth when they acquire land?
 
JW, you can probably answer this best. Where would I find out where funding came from for a project? Is that part of the public record? Available from the town conservation dept.?

There was a ton of work done to upgrade a herring run and basically the neighbors have shut off access to the area.

Access to the run area would open access to the entire pond, including duck hunting and fishing. Presently the only available parking within 3/4 mile is in a school lot.
 
Back
Top Bottom